F(^^? 




SPEECH 



OF 



HON. J. W. NESMITH, OF OREGON, 



ov 



. RECONSTRUCTION; 



DELIVERED ' ^"T^ 'V O 






IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 18, 1866. 



WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1866. 



.A/46 



RECONSTRUGTION. 



The Sena^B resumed the consideration of the fol- 
lowing resolution introduced by Mr. IIowk, of Wis- 
consin: 

Whereas the people of Virginia, of North Carolina, 
of South Carolina, of Georgia, of Florida, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennes- 
see have heretofore declared their independence of 
the Government of the United States, have usurped 
authority denied to every State by the supreme law 
of the land, have abjured duties imposed upon every 
State by the same law, and have waged war against 
the United States, whereby the political functions for- 
merly granted to those people have been suspended; 
and whereas such functions cannot yet be restored 
to those people with safety to themselves or to the na- 
tion; and whereas military tribunals are not suited 
to the exercise of civil authority: Therefore, 

Be it rcfolvcd by llie Senate and House of licpresent- 
atives in Congress assembled. That local governments 
ought to be provisionally organized forthwith for the 
people in each of the districts named in the preamble 
hereto. 

Mr. NESMITH. Mr. President, the nation 
having passed successfully through the most 
terrible ordc:il offour)'earsof civil war, and hav- 
ing vindicated its supremacy over every foot of 
its vast territory, as the din of battle is hushed, 
and the fierce passions of the combatants have 
subsided, we are no longer called upon to de- 
vise means for the support of great armies, but 
the higher duty devolves upon us of restoring 
the country to a state of peaceful prosperity and 
happiness. In the discharge of this important 
duty let us not be animated by feelingsof hatred 
and revenge toward those so recently in hostil- 
ity to the national authority, but rather cultivate 
that spirit of friendship and forbearance so 
essential to our future prosperity as a great, 
united, and prosperous people, destined to the 
enjoyment of a free Government of our own 
construction. 



The ravages of war, which have wrought such 
havoc with all our material interests, have been 
unequal to the task of destroying or subverting 
our form of government, and we emerge from 
the conflict with a Constitution intact, while the 
mass of our people are only the more strongly 
d#\'oted to its principles by reason of the perils it 
has survived. It now becomes our duty to re- 
pair the damages resulting from attempts at dis- 
organization. In the dischargeof that duty we 
cannot, if we would, relieve ourselves from the 
obligations which we are under to "guaranty 
to every State in this Union a republican form 
of government." 

As diverse sentiments are entertained relative 
to the mode of discharging this duty, I propose 
to examine the President's plan of restoration, 
involving the speedy admission of Senator.'^ and 
Representatives from the southern States, and 
then the opposit6 or different plan of what is 
popularly called reconstruction, under some 
kind of act to be passed by Congress, in which 
new conditions of admission shall be exacted. 
Upon examining both these plans, and con- 
trasting them with each other, we shall be able 
to form a clear opinion as to our duty in this 
juncture of our public affairs. 

The President has required several things of 
the southern people, and has recommended oth- 
ers for their acceptance; and he has done all 
this in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief of 
the Array and Navy of the United States, and 
also in his civil capacity as Chief Executive of 
the Republic. 

As Commander-in-Chief, it was his duty to 



put down the rebellion and all its works, and he 
has done so thoroughly. At least what was left 
undone by his predecessor toward this end he 
has done most faithfully and skillfally. Armed 
resistance no longer continues anywhere within 
the limits of the United States, nor is there the 
slightest probability that it wall be renewed. 

But there were rebel State goveriynents 
throughout the so-called confederate States. 
These have been subverted, utterly removed 
from the face of the earth. Regarded as revo- 
lutionary and illegal in character, they were 
made to give way before the power of the United 
States, until not a vestige of them is now left. 
All those hostile organizations are defunct. 
They are dead, and will know no resurrection. 
The President, believing them to be wholly in- 
valid in point of law, and criminal in purpose, 
refused them the slightest recognition, and has 
wiped them out effectually and finally. This 
was his duty, and he has performed it well. 

But other things beyond this were required 
to vindicate the authority of the United States 
and to stamp the rebellion as illegal and wrong- 
ful. The President has therefore required those 
States to repudiate their ordinances of seces- 
sion in express terms, and this has been done 
by most of those States in reorganizing their 
governments upon a loyal foundation. Their 
constitutional conventions have declared those 
ordinances to be null and void. In one or two 

' cases, I believe, they have simply repealed them, 
but the practical effect is in substance the same. 
A further requirement made by the President, 
and acceded to by the people of the South, has 
been the repudiation of all rebel indebtedness 
incurred in behalf of the rebellion. I believe the 
rebel indebtedness, or at least most of it, had its 

• payment conditional upon the accomiDlishment 
of southern independence. It was expressly 
madepayable when the confederate States should 
become independent of the United States, and 
their independence should be recognized. Upon 
the whole, I conclude the confederate creditors 
hold about the worst securities known upon the 
face of the earth. There is no such government 
as incurred that debt in existence, and never will 
be ; the time fixed for payment has become im- 
possible, and lastl}', at (he instance of President 
Johnson, the whole debt has been repudiated, as 
unauthorized and unlawful, by pojjular conven- 



tions. Little sympathy need be felt in the case for 
the creditoi's of the South, whether foreign or do- 
mestic. They loaned their money upon a sjiec- 
ulation and took the chances of the war. In fact, 
the confederate loans were in the nature of a 
gambling transaction ; they were in substance 
bets upon the issue or result of the war. If the 
confederacy triumphed, the loan-holders would 
make immense fortunes upon small sums in- 
vested. If it fa^Jed, they were to lose their 
investments, for by the express terms of their 
contract they were only to be paid in case the 
rebellion should be successful. 

From this statement of the position of the 
confederate creditors, how unnecessary appears 
the proposed amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States to prevent the payment of the 
confederate debt. A debt three times dead al- 
ready is to be killed a fourth time by an amend- 
ment to the Federal Constitution. The debtor — 
the confederate government — is dead, and has 
left no effects ; the time of payment has become 
an impossible date, and President Johnson has 
had an express repudiation of it put in all the 
new southern constitutions. I think, therefore, 
the subject is disposed of, if it be possible to 
dispose of and settle any subject whatever which 
has once been involved in public debate. 

But I will proceed with my statement of the 
President's policy of restoration, in order to 
bring out all the leading points which it involves. 
The rebel State governments being entirely re- 
moved from the southern country, and the civil 
and military authorities^cf the spurious confed- 
eracy put down, the scene presented in that sec- 
tion was one of unorganized States. The ter- 
ritory and the people remained, and over both 
the authority of the Government of the United 
States was reestablished ; but the latter was seen 
mainly in the exhibition of the war power by 
which the rebellion had been smitten, and its 
political as well as martial machinery leveled 
to the dust. The President explains very hand- 
somely and clearly in his annual message the 
views by which he was j^rompted at that time. 
For the moment, his will was law from the Po- 
tomac to the shores of the Gulf. He held in 
hand the largest army of modern times, an im- 
mense naval force, and stood as the representa- 
tive of a flushed and triumphant nation. It is a 
maxim that "power is ever grasping" and am- 



f* 



bitious of its own perpetuity; but when the 
ruler of a great nation, in times when turbu- 
lence seems to have relaxed the bonds of gov- 
ernment, refuses to usurp questionable author- 
ity over a fallen foe, Avhose acts are so justly 
open to universal condemnation, lie gives the 
strongest possible evidence of his patriotism 
and honesty of puqiose, and furnishes a new 
guarantee of both the justice and strength of a 
republican Government. 

No greater mass of power was ever held un- 
der circumstances of such transcendent im- 
portance by one man since the creation of the 
eartli. But our patriot President was equal to 
the crisis. The occasion did not find him un- 
prepared for the duties which it imposed. He 
remembered his oath to support the Consti- 
tution of the United States. He remembered 
that he was one of the people, pledged by his 
birth, by his early struggles, by the professions 
and conduct of a prolonged and illustrious ca- 
reer, to the republican principle of govern- 
ment by the people and for the people, and to 
the rejection of all forms of arbitrary and un- 
constitutional rule. While he was determined 
to secure the proper fruits of victory, he had 
no heart for works of persecution and venge- 
ance, nor any disposition to transcend his powers 
and establish despotic principles in the admin- 
istration of the Government. What then did 
he do, and what does he now propose? Let 
him be judged by his acts, openly performed 
in the face of the world, and by the recommen- 
dations of policy which he makes to Congress 
and to the people. 

Well, sir, he called into requisition the ex- 
ecutive power of pardon, and he has used that 
power efliciently in the work of restoration. 
Through this power he has dealt with indind- 
uals engaged in rebellion. He has restored 
many such to their rights, forfeited under the 
laws of their country, and screened them from 
prosecution and punishment. But was this 
done rashly, blindly, and without discrimina- 
tion or just conditions imposed? No, sir, noth- 
ing of the sort ! There was no precipitancy 
and" no blundering ! His general amnesty proc- 
lamation conformed to the policy of his pred- 
ecessor, Mr. Lincoln, but he reserved from its 
operation large classes of cases for special ac- 
tion upon individual application? for pardon : 



and in all cases where executive clemency has 
been extended, an oath has beeVi required as a 
guarantee of future conduct and of allegiance 
to the Government of the United States. 

Through his exercise of the pardoning power 
the authority and dignity of the L'nited States 
have been asserted, and those who have been 
unfaithful to the Government made to acknowl- 
edge their fault, to sue lor clemency, and most 
solemnly to pledge their fealty to the LTnited 
States. The general submission of the south- 
ern people since the close of the war rendered 
a magnanimous policy toward them possible 
and proper ; and I believe the President has 
acted with great discretion and wisdom in ex- 
tending amnesty and pardon to the great mass 
of the southern people, while withholding it 
thus .far from particular classes or prominent 
offenders among them. 

But his policy for restoring loyal State gov- 
ernments has been equally important. He did 
not choose to continue military occupation of 
the South, with its enormous expense and other 
attendant evils, any longer than was necessary. 
Troops were therefore gradually withdrawn and 
disbanded, and now the number remaining in 
that section is comparatively inconsiderable. 
For military rule civil rule has been substituted', 
and that in the only way in which it could be 
properly done — by the action of the people them- 
selves. They were invited to reorganize their 
State governments,, and they have done so, 
fully and completely. To this end delegates to 
' constitutional conventions were chosen, consti- 
I tutions formed, and subsequent elections for 
I members of Legislatures, for Governors, and 
1 other officers have been held. Perfect State 
I governments have been reestablished by the ac- 
I tion of the people themselves in nearly all the 
! States in question, which are republican in form, 
j and clearly entitled to the protection of the 
United States under the guarantee clause of the 
Constitution. 
I I deny all power in Congress, or the Pres- 
[ ident, or in both combined, to make a State 
! constitution, or to dictate any provision which 
shall be contained in it. A constitution must 
be wholly made by the people over whom it is 
established, and can be made or amended by no 
j other persons whatever. Thus have been made 
the new constitutions of the southern States, 



6 



and their validity rests immovably upon the 
ground that they are thus popular in origin, 
while ioyal in object and republican in form. 

It is true that the proceedings for forming 
the new constitutions were initiated by pro- 
visional governors appointed by the President 
and acting under his direction. But this can- 
not affect the validity or merit of the constitu- 
tions made. The provisional governors sim- 
ply invited the people to act in their sovereign 
capacity in reorganizing governments for them- 
selves, which was both necessary and proper 
under the circumstances' which then existed. 
There were no local authorities or officers com- 
petent to call conventions, or give them pro- 
tection while in session, although a clear ne- 
cessity for convening existed, if civil rule was 
to supplant military rule in that section of the 
country. Therefore the provisional governors, 
who represented the military power of the Uni- 
ted States for the time being, in order to the 
withdrawal of that power and to the restora- 
tion of valid and loyal State governments, were 
authorized to invite the people to select dele- 
gates to constitutional conventions in their re- 
spective States. Those conventions met and 
formed constitutions which are unquestionably 
good and lawful, not because the making of 
them was instigated or invited by provisional 
governors, but because (as before stated) thej' 
were in fact made by the people over whom they 
are established, and made in accord with the 
Government of the United States. I am not 
now speaking of the exceptional cases of Lou- 
isiana, Virginia, and Arkansas, but of the other 
States of the South in which there was no pre- 
tense of loyal government at the close of the 
war, and where it was necessary, therefore, that 
some authority, some official or volunteer asso- 
ciation, or person, should initiate their establish- 
ment by setting in motion the sovereign popular 
power which was alone competent to the work. 

There is no soundness in the objection some- 
times made that the southern constitutions, or 
some of them, were not submitted to a popular 
vote for adoption or rejection. The people of 
any State may authorize delegates, selected by 
them, to form a constitution, which shall be 
legal to all intents and purposes ; and the peo- 
ple of some of the States of the Union are now 
living under constitutions thus made. 



For instance, the Pennsylvania constitution 
of 179.0, which yet exists in an amended form, 
was not submitted to a popular vote, but was 
simply proclaimed by the convention which 
made it. It is very well that new constitutions 
should, in ordinary cases, be submitted to a 
popular vote ; and this is necessary where a law 
under which a convention assembles provides 
for such submission. But it is most absurd 
to say, as some have said, that a constitution 
cannot take effect and have authority unless 
adopted by a popular vote ; for it is perfectly 
plain and undeniable, that though the people 
cannot strip themselves of their sovereignty, 
they may delegate to a representative body the 
exercise of sovereign powers. In fact the peo- 
ple would no longer be sovereign if they should 
be stripped of the power of appointing dele- 
gates or representatives to act for them in the 
making of a constitution. 

In the case of Kansas the true objection was 
not simply that the Lecompton constitution had 
not been submitted to a vote of the people. In 
fact a part of it was submitted. The true ob- 
jection was that the people of Kansas did not 
select the men who made the constitution, and 
that, therefore, it could not be taken as their 
"act and deed," unless they should accept or 
ratify it by a direct vote. But where the peo- 
ple do in fact select delegates to a convention, 
and confer upon them, expressly or impliedly, 
the power or authority to frame a constitution, 
the convention may enact a constitution, which 
will be valid without any additional sanction or 
further proceeding. 

But one point further connected with the Pres- 
ident's plan of restoration (and it is a most im- 
portant one) remains to be noticed. It is the 
securing of emancipation to the black race in 
the South as a result of the war, and as a guar- 
antee of future quiet and harmony to the na- 
tion. Emancipation, now fully accomplished, 
both in law and fact, rests upon the following 
foundations : 

1. The proclamation of Pi-esident Lincoln 
of January 1, 1863. 

2. His subsequent amnesty proclamation, so 
far as the same was accepted or acted upon by 
individuals in the southern country. 

3. The direct action of military force during 
the war, in conformity with executive policy, 



and, to some extent, under the authority of 
laws enacted by Congress. 

4. The amnesty proelamation of President 
Johnson, of 18G5, and subsequent special par- 
dons granted by him : amnesty and pardon be- 
ing extended upon conditions which involved 
emanciptltlon and furnished securities for car- 
rying out the previous policy of the President 
and Congress on that subject. 

5. The adoption, by the Legislatures of the 
several reorganized States, of the proposed 
amendment to the Constitution prohibiting sla- 

'very generally and for all future time within the 
United States, and conferring upon Congress 
adequate power to enforce the prohibition. 

Upon the last two heads the President speaks 
as follows in his annual message: 

" In exercising that power [the power of pardon] I 
have taken every precaution to connect it with the 
clearest recognition of the binding force of the laws 
of the United States, and an unqualified acknowledg- 
ment of the groat social change of condition in regard 
to slavery which has grown out of the war." 

The executive power of amnesty and pardon 
was ample to cover and justify what was done. 
In other words, it was competent for the Presi- 
dent to attach conditions to pardons, granted. 
He proceeds in his message to say : 

• "The next step which I have taken to restore the 
! eonslitutional relations of the States has been an in- 
vitation to them to participate in the high office of 
amending the Constitution." * * * * "It 
is not too much to ask, in the nameof the whole peo- 
ple, that on the one side the plan of restoration shall 
proceed in conformity with a willingness to cast the 
disorders of the past into oblivion, and that, on the 
other, the evidence of sincerity in the future main- 
tenance of the Union shall bo put beyond any doubt 
by the ratification of the proposed amendment to the 
Constitution which provides for the abolition of sla- 
. Tery forever within the limits of our country." 

This "invitation" to the southern States 
has been complied with by them. They have, 
through their Legislatures, adopted the consti- 
tutional amendment, and thus made it a part 
of the fundamental law of the United States. 

I have thus gone over several features of the 
President's policy of restoration, so far as the 
same relates to the action of his department of 
the Government; and however much nice crit- 
ics, captious men, or interested agitators may 
be disposed to find fault with it and condemn 
it, either in whole or in part, I believe the great 
mass of the people of this country will heartily 
approve and indorse it. In fact, the evidences 



of such approval come to ns from every quar- 
ter; they multiply daily, and cheer and invig- 
orate the friends of reunion and of constitu- 
tional rule. What, then, remains for Congress 
to do to perfect restoration, to carry out the 
policy which the President has begun? In his 
annual message the President addresses Con- 
gress as follows: 

" The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, 
it would remain for States whoso powers have been 
so long in abeyance to resume their places in the two 
branches of the national Legislature, and thereby- 
complete thework of restoration. Here it is foryou, 
fellow-citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow-cit- 
izens of the Ilouse of Representatives, to judge, each 
of you, for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and 
qualifications of your own members." 

The meaning of this important passage cannot 
be misunderstood. The language is remarka- 
ble and peculiar in form. It is addressed to the 
members of each House separately and dis- 
tinctly, and suggests to them the performanctr 
of a duty under the provision of the Constitu- 
tion which makes the respective Houses judges 
of questions relating to membership. This ia 
a power to be exercised by each House for itself, 
quite independent of and uninfluenced by the 
other House. 

The duty is judicial in its nature and not 
legislative, and one of the gravest character. 
And the power is so clear, and its exercise so 
necessary to the restoration of the Union, that 
the President, as it was proper for him to do, 
has in emphatic language called the attention 
of Congress to its performance. And in address- 
ing the members of each House, in their sepa- 
rate capacity, he has used language suited to 
the inculcation of the constitutional duty, and 
distinguished it from all those duties which are 
to be performed by the two Houses in their joint 
or legislative capacity. 

In his communication to the Senate of De- 
cember 18, in answer to a resolution of inquiry, 
the President further says : 

" From all the information in my possession, and 
from that which I have recently derived from the 
most reliable authority, I am induced to cherish the 
belief that sectional animosity is surely and rapidly 
merging itself into a spirit of nationality, and that 
representation, connected with a properly adjusted 
system of taxation, will result in a harmonious resto- 
ration of the relations of the States to the national 
Government." 

We have here, in these extracts, the opinion 

of the President upon the question of what 



8 



stould be done at this juncture by Congress, or 
rather by the respective Houses of Congress, in 
the work of restoration. The representation of 
tJie southern States is to be restored by appro- 
priate action of each House under a clear con- 
stitutional power, the exercise of which will be 
completely efficacious to the object in view. 

Thus the Union can be restored in its integ- 
rity, and all questions connected with its res- 
toration disposed of forever. 
- "^^Tiy, then, should not the Senate and House, 
respectively, proceed to consider the questions 
of membership which are brought before them, 
and decide them upon the same principles of 
wisdom, magnanimity, and patriotism, which 
have characterized the President's conduct and 
policy with reference to the southern States ? 
"What good object is to be subserved by keep- 
ing open the question of restoration, and delay- 
ing to the country the enjoyment of the fruits 
of ^ictory and peace? These questions do not 
concern the peojile of the South alone. They 
are interesting and important to the people of 
the whole country. It is desirable, in the judg- 
ment of intelligent and i^atriotic men every- 
where throughout the land, that all the relations 
between the sections which were inteiTupted by 
the war shouldbe restored at the earliestpossible 
moment. 

Let commerce revive; let trade resume its 
ceaseless activity; let social intercourse suc- 
ceed to estrangement and division, and let the 
political bonds of union be renewed in all the 
strength and brightness of former times. 

But there are men who are dissatisfied with 
the prospect of these results. There are men 
who decry the President's policy and pronounce 
it a failure. There are men who are not sat- 
isfied with complete victory in the war ; with 
emancipation secured by constitutional pro- 
visions, repudiation of rebel indebtedness, and 
complete submission of the southern people to 
the laws and jurisdiction of the Federal Govern- 
ment ; and their sincere, generous, and earnest 
proffer of allegiance and devotion to it. They 
seek to delay reunion, and to impose further 
conditions upon the southern people as the price 
of conceding it. What those conditions shall 
be does not very clearly appear, as scarcely any 
two men among the objectors agree entirely in 
their definition and statement. But some of 



them are sufficiently evident already, and may 
be made the topics of immediate discussion. 
They are to be presented through laws enacted 
by Congress, and in propositions for the amend- 
ment of the Constitution of the United States. 
But, before they are discussed, it will be 
proper to notice briefly some of the reasons 
which appeal to Congress in favor of the Presi- 
dent' s policy of immediate restoration. 

The recognition of the reorganized State gov- 
ernments, by the admission of Senators and 
Representatives, is due to the loyal men of the 
South who assisted in their formation and now 
adhere to them, not only as instruments of lo- 
cal government, but also for securing renewed 
representation in the Government of the United 
States. This class of men, our brothers and 
friends, have a merit above and beyond that 
which belongs to men of the North. Their 
devotion to the Government was maintained un- 
der appalling difficulties. They have suffered 
severely, and they now look to immediate 
restoration as necessary to their interests and 
welfare. Their appeal is not to be resisted or 
postponed unless overwhelming considerations 
of necessity or policy demand it. These State 
governments have been organized in concert 
with the President of the United States, and in 
accordance with a policy projiosed by him as 
the Chief Magistrate of the nation. So far as 
he could reasonably act on behalf of the people 
of the United States, in the work of reconstruc- 
tion, we are bound in good faith to sustain the 
arrangements made at his instance, and accept 
Representatives from the reorganized States. 

By prompt recognition, we conciliate the peo- 
ple of the South, and attach them more firmly 
to ourselves for the future. In this case, mag- 
nanimity is safety ; for we will obtain by it ad- 
ditional security against future dangers. We 
will "consolidate the Union;" that is, we will 
strengthen it, render its bonds firm, repress dis- 
affection, and reaiove all possibility of foreign 
inti'igue in that section hereafter. 

By immediate recognition we will promote 
and insure the prosperity of both sections. 
Capital will go more promptly into the South 
for investment ; production there will be incited ; 
trade and.commcrce will revive, and sources of 
revenue to the public Treasury -nill be opened 
and enlarged. 



9 



Eecognitlon relieves us from a vast burden 
of expense in maintaining civil and military 
establishments of government, and from the in- 
convenience and scandals arising from conflict- 
ing jurisdictions in administration. 

Recognition and representation in Congress 
establish and maintain a republican principle 
vital to our system and sanctified to us by the 
struggles of our fathers. "\Vo tax the South, 
and we shall tax it heavily hereafter. The 
public necessities and the principle of equal 
taxation make this a necessity. But it will be 
unjust, odious, and anti-republican, to tax them 
without admitting them to representation in that 
Government by which the taxes are imposed. 

Finally, by recognition and renewed repre- 
sentation in Congress, we restore all the great 
interests of the country, and they will again 
have a due voice in the Government, and j^ar- 
ticipate in the debates by which its policy is 
shaped and determined. And it will be partic- 
ularly useful, as well as just, that upon questions 
afifecting the southern people their Represent- 
atives shall be heard before the laws by which 
they are to be bound shall be enacted. 

It is further to be remarked that these re- 
organized State governments can be recognized 
with much more propriety than those set up or 
proposed during the war under Mr. Lincoln's 
one-tenth plan. In the first place, they are 
established after the return of jDeacc, and not 
during the pressure of military operations. 

They are, to a great extent, free from the 
objection urged against the Lincoln States, 
of being formed within the theater of actual 
war, and therefore, of necessity, mere creations 
and creatures of military power. In the next 
place, they are established in each State by a 
clear majority of the people and not by a minor- 
ity, thus conforming, in a most vital particular, 
to true republican principles. 

Some people think, or pretend to think, that 
the southern States have been out of the Union, 
and that an act of Congress is necessary to re- 
admit or restore them. It is true that a part 
of the people South voted to go out of the 
Union, and took up arms to sustain that reso- 
lution. That is undeniably true. But we said 
that they should not go out, and we made war 
to compel them to remain. The contest be- 
tween them and us was to determine whether 



their resolution or ours, upon this very point 
of going out, should prevail. They were beaten 
in the war; their object frustrated, its realiza- 
tion prevented. They did not get out of the 
Union because they failed in the war. Success 
would have taken them out ; failure left them 
in. That is the simple truth and the whole truth 
upon this subject, and the conclusion follows 
that no act of Congress is necessary to their 
restoration. 

I see, therefore, no objection upon grounds of 
principle to the President's policy of re.'storation 
so far as he has carried it, nor to its consumma- 
tion and complete fulfillment by the admission of 
Senators and Representatives by Congi-ess. On 
the contrary, the reasons which support that pol- 
icy are numerous, weighty, and decisive. 

In contrast with the policy advocated by the 
President is that known as the radical policy, 
which proceeds upon the hypothesis that negro 
suffrage is a certain and sure remedy for all the 
evils which afflict the State. I look upon the 
remedy as worse than the disease, as it imposes 
a lasting and permanent evil for one of a tem- 
porary character. An attempt to dilute and 
weaken the intelligence upon which the safety of 
our free institutions is founded can only be fol- 
lowed by disastrous results. 

If the inherent and superior intelligence of the 
white man is incapable of directing and perpetu- 
ating our form of Government, God defend us 
from an appeal to African auxiliaries for the con- 
summation of that grand result. 

The right of suffrage impliedly carries with 
it the right of governing by holding office, and 
against the lodgment of such powers in the 
hands of the late slaves I enter my solemn pro- 
test. I admit that it is not the fault of the Afri- 
can, the Indian, or the Asiatic, that his skin is 
not white, or that he does not exhibit those 
great characteristics which qualify him to gov- 
ern the white race, and I am not disposed to 
inflict punishment upon the African because, 
while our white ancestors were contending for 
civil and religious liberty, his were the nude 
barbarians engaged in eating or selling those 
whom the fortunes of war placed within their 
power upon their native deserts. God made 
the distinction in creating the races, and by an 
immutable law he made their permanent com- 
mingling an impossibility. Where the white 



10 



race predominates it governs, and in Africa and 
Hayti, where the negro is the dominant race, 
he governs, and sedulously excludes the white 
man from any participation. And while I do 
not propose toreenact the ordinances of Provi- 
dence, I am an advocate of the maintenance of 
the distinction of the races, socially and po- 
litically. 

Notwithstanding the denunciations which 
have been hurled against the sentiment, I still 
believe that this is a white man's Government, 
framed by white men, and for white men ; In- 
stituted by their wisdom and defended by their 
valor. In saying this, I do not mean to be un- 
derstood as asserting that the negroes, the In- 
dians, or any other inferior races should be ex- 
cluded from the natural rights of life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happmess ; but I do mean to say 
that the hardy, persevering, industrious, brave, 
and intelligent Anglo-Saxon race and their de- 
scendants, who brought civilization and the arts 
into the New "World, and who have organized, 
defended, and perpetuated free government 
here, are not to be overridden and have a gov- 
ernmental policy dictated to them by any semi- 
barbarous inferiors, who have never evinced the 
intelligence here, nor in their own country, 
necessary to better their own condition ; who 
have never had inventive genius to improve 
upon the rudeness of the most barbarous 
life ; who have never had the courage to assert 
and maintain a respectable Government any- 
where. 

A stroke of the pen and sword combined has 
stricken the fetters from the limbs of the slave, 
but has left him, in jDoint of intelligence, but 
little the superior of the brute creation or the 
inanimate objects by which he is surrounded. 
The stroke of neither the pen nor sword can 
relieve the emancipated slave of his servile 
instincts and fit him at once for the judicious 
exercise of the right of suffrage. He is as igno- 
rant and passive to-day as he was before a drop 
of the white man's blood was shed to secure 
his emancipation, and he will be no better to- 
morrow. By forcibly thrusting upon him the 
right of suffrage, of which he has no adequate 
comprehension, you cither leave him the dupe 
of his old master, to be voted at his will, or force 
bim into an unequal contest with your own race, 
who, since anything has been known of them, 



have either enslaved or exterminated every other 
race with which they have come in contact. 

It seems to me unreasonable that we should 
be called upon at this day to discuss a question 
of extending suffrage to a race who are noto- 
riously unfit to exercise it intelligently and 
wisely. But surprise at this fact will be les- 
sened when we consider that those who are most 
anxious to secure negro suffrage, who are most 
ardent and boisterous in its favor, are precisely 
those persons who know least about the negro, 
and are least qualified to judge and deterniine 
any question of policy concerning him. There 
is no extensive sentiment anywhere in the south- 
ern States in favor of negro suffrage. What is 
thought on that subject in this city of Wash- 
ington was determined recently by an almost 
unanimous vote of the qualified citizens against 
it. Advancing northward, we find constitu- 
tional provisions established in most of the cen- 
tral States to preclude all legislative action upon 
the subject. Only when we arrive in the ex- 
treme North, where this race is scarcely known 
as an element of population, do we find any con- 
siderable sentiment in favor of degrading the 
elective franchise to the level of negro intelli- 
gence and capacity. And even in recent elec- 
tions held in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Min- 
nesota, decided majorities were given against 
the extension of suffrage to the small number 
of negroes resident in those States. Upon the 
Pacific coast, lam sure, the people are opposed 
to suffrage by negroes, by Asiatics, or by In- 
dians found within their borders, and they will 
long remain so. In short, if negro suffrage were 
submitted, at this hour, to a vote of the whole 
electoral population of the United States, I be- 
lieve they would decide against it Ijy a vote of 
four to one. Even the negroes themselves do 
not demand or ask it, except where they are 
instigated or influenced by white men whose 
trade is agitation and whose purpose is mis- 
chief. It is clear, then, that public opinion 
does not demand from Congress any legislation 
or action whatsoever looking to negro suffrage. 
The cry for it is the clamor of .faction and not 
the voice of the people. 

It is equally clear and certain that Congress 
has no rightful power to determine a question 
of suffrage in any State ; that an attempt to do 
so would be a usurpation, and directly opposed 



11 



to the fundamental division of powers between 
the States and the Federal Government. 

But negro suflrage would not be desirable or 
useful, but, on the contrary, pernicious, even if 
no impediment existed in public opinion, or in 
constitutional law. It would inevitably degrade 
and corrupt elections, and that to an extent 
fearful to contemplate. Electoral privilege is 
a trust as well as a right. It is, in fact, a pub- 
lic duty rather than a personal privilege ; a duty 
of the gravest importance, and requiring inde- 
pendence, intelligence, and virtue in a high de- 
gree to its proper exercise. Its strongest and 
most persistent advocates are to be found among 
politicians who perceive the true relation be- 
tween cause and effect ; that ignorance can be 
made to count hugely at elections, and that 
party organizations, and public men who would 
not be upheld by the intelligence of the coun- 
try can, by its aid. riot in place and wield the 
scepter of public power. 

With all th« justice, patriotism, and magna- 
nimity which we may claim for the States now 
represented upon this floor, how few of them 
have become convinced of the propriety of con- 
ferring the right of suffrage upon the few and 
comparatively intelligent negroes to be found 
within their borders? If the experiment under 
such favorable circumstancesbecomes of doubt- 
ful propriety with our own States, where is the 
justice or propriety of our forcing it upon other 
States, where the African has not had time to 
commence his recovery from the debasing ef- 
fects of the most degraded servitude? 

The propriety of universal suffrage among 
our own race has long been a debatable ques- 
tion among the warmer friends of republican 
institutions, and while it is difhcult to fix any 
boundaries for the intelligence which shall au- 
thorize its exercise, it is conceded by all that 
there is danger in conferring it upon those who 
are ignorant of our Government and institu- 
tions. Examples are not wanting of the re- 
strictions which have been imposed by States 
against its universality. The Indian, with all his 
native sagacity and the noble attributes awarded 
to him by Utopian writers, has been almost uni- 
versally denied its exercise. In times of polit- 
ical excitement parties have been enabled to 
foist amendments upon State constitutions 
whkh excluded white persons of foreign birth 



whose political sentiments were not in unison 
with the progressive and transcendental theo- 
ries of intolerant majorities. 

But, sir, admitting, for argument's sake, the 
propriety of conferring the right of suffrage 
indiscriminately upon everything that walks 
upright upon two feet, what right has Congress 
to meddle with this question within the States 
of the Union? . 

By an appeal to arms you have reduced the 
citizens of the southern States to a condi- 
tion of obedience to the Constitution and laws 
of the United States. You and I denied their 
pretended assumption of the right to take 
their States out of the Union. They appealed 
to arras as the last resort to enforce their pre- 
tended rights of secession. We metthcra openly 
and squarely upon that issue, and wrung from 
them a verdict, at the cost of hundreds of thou- 
sands of lives and thousands of millions of dol- 
lars. In this verdict they now acquiesce ; and 
are we, in the moment of victory, to be guilty 
of the folly of turning around and conceding 
all their claims by admitting that they are no 
longer States of the Union, bound to observe 
its Constitution and yield obedience to its laws, 
and reciprocally entitled to Its protection and 
rights? Such action would be a surrender to 
the rebels, by legislation, of more than they have 
been able to wring from us by arms, and would 
be a practical ratification of their secession ordi- 
nances, and a dissolution of the Union by act 
of Congress. 

Why should we involve ourselves in the para- 
doxical absurdity of denying the right of seces- 
sion, of fighting them for four years to enforce 
that denial, and- when they admit their failure 
by the last arbitrament, turn round and admit 
that thejjihave accomplished their purpose, and 
are to-day outside the Union ? The rebellion 
having been a failure on the part of those who 
inaugurated It, it would seem the height of folly 
on the part of those who resisted it so success- 
fully to dignify It with all the consequences 
of a success. If, as I believe, they have not 
achieved the object for which they began the 
war, and their insurrection has been suppressed, 
it would seem that nothing has occurred to 
change their political relations to the Union, 
and they must be still States composing its in- 
tegral parts. Every department of this Gov- 



12 



ernment has so recognized them in some form 
or other, and I take it that they are as much 
States in the Union to-day as though their citi 
zens had never committed treason against it. 
The crime of treason can only be committed 
by individuals, and whether they are pardoned 
or punished for the offense cannot affect the 
condition of the body-politic of which they may 
happen to be members. 

It is a well-known fact that in many of those 
States a minority of the people assumed to sever 
the connection of the State with the Union, and 
that the majority were forced to succumb in 
some instances to de facto governments forced 
■upon them by a minority of their own citizens, 
aided by rebel forces drawn from other revolted 
States. In this view of the facts, if we are to 
admit that States thus situated have been taken 
out of the Union, it becomes an interesting 
qi;estion to know exactly how small a minority, 
aided by troops from other States, maybe able, 
under the influence of such auxiliaries, to effect 
a legal consummation of the proposed act. It 
might also be the subject of inquiry to know to 
what extent the loyaFand non-seceding major- 
ity were bound by such acts under duress. • It 
is said that troops from neighboring States sur- 
rounded the convention at Little Rock, in Ar- 
kansas, and by threats and intimidation forced 
members elected as Union men to vote for the 
ordinance of secession. If Lee, in one of his 
advances into Pennsjdvania, had, by the same 
means, effected the same results with a Legis- 
lature or convention at Harrisburg, and subse- 
quently the people in Pennsylvania, or a ma- 
jority of them, 'had been conscripted and placed 
in the rebel army ; after the invaders had been 
driven from the State as they have been from 
the southern States, would any man claim that 
Pennsylvania was no longer a State of this 
Union ; and that in consequence of her soil be- 
ing invaded and her peoi^le overcome by rebel 
hordes, that her relation to the Union was 
changed, and that in consequence of these re- 
sults her altered relations to the Union were 
such as to authorize Congress to interfere in her 
internal policy, or alter her suffrage laws? If 
it is claimed that such a secession from the 
Union, under such circumstances, was null 
and void, and ought not to alter the relations 
of Pennsylvania toward the Union, I answer | 



that all acts of secession are equally null 
and void, and cannot change the relations 
which a State bears toward the Federal Con- 
stitution. 

The ridiculous and absurd acts of the pre- 
tended and fugitive Legislatures of Kentucky 
and Missouri, by which those bodies pretended 
to sever the relations of their respective States 
with the Federal Union, were as valid as the 
similar attempts at the same thing by the con- 
ventions of South Carolina and Mississippi. If 
they were not, and if Missouri and Kentucky 
are not to-day as effectually out of the Union 
as any other States, I should like to have some 
oasuist upon the question of legal and constitu- 
tional secession explain the reason why. Yet 
no one seems to question the right of Missouri 
or Kentucky to be represented here, and I sup- 
pose that their cases are exceptional because 
they did not legally secede. 

"Well, sir, if those States did not legally se- 
cede, would it not be well to inquire into the 
legality of the similar attempts upon the part of 
other States, and if it should turn out that none 
of them have seceded legally, the natural infer- 
ence would be that none of them could legally 
be denied that representation upon this floor 
and that immunity from Federal interference in 
their internal affairs which the Constitution of 
the United States awards to them. 

Mr. President, I have been astonished, when 
I have read the speeches of men who are sup- 
l^osed to be endowed with common sense, to ob- 
serve the subterfuges and expedients to which 
they have resorted to prove by specious and 
silly arguments that the southern States have 
actually seceded and dissolved this Union. The 
advocates of the finality of secession, in their at- 
tempts to prove that it has been consummated, 
notwithstanding its unconstitutionality, com- 
placently adduce what they suppose a parallel 
in the case of murder, and suppose that they are 
demolishing all arguments against their theory, 
by complacently, and with apparent triumph, 
asserting that the laws prohibit murder, there- 
fore murder cannot be committed. I pity the 
statesman or lawyer who is driven to such sub- 
terfuges of the pettifogger to sustain so trans- 
parent a fallacy. Murder, like other crimes, is 
punished by a local law, and its perpetration 
is constantly occurring and being punished. 



13 



The restriction finds a place in our great funda- 
mental law which declares that — 

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States 
which shall bo made in pursuanco thereof, and all 
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the au- 
thority of the United States, shall bo the supreme law 
of the land; and the judses in every State shall be 
bound thereby, anythincr in the constitution or laws of 
any State to the contrary' notwithstanding." 

This is an asser;ijn of the supremacy of the 
Constitution, and when its violation is attempted 
the courts have never admitted the success of 
such attempts, but have invariably stamped them 
as nullities, and void, because of their legal im- 
possibility. I should hope that there are but few 
men in our country who are unable to compre- 
hend the distinction between a criminal statute 
and a great constitutional restriction. 

It is urged as an objection against the rec- 
ognition of those States that their Legislatures 
might not be in unison with some other States. 
The same objection might be urged against the 
internal policy of any of the other States of this 
Union, and only furnishes an argument in favor 
of the obliteration Of all States, lea\'ing the le- 
gislation of what is now called the United States 
to be consummated by a great centralized Gov- 
ernment established here at the national cap- 
ital. I have never been an advocate of State 
rights except when they were exercised in sub- 
ordination to that paramount law known as the 
Constitution of the United States. I know that 
the States lately in rebellion are not the only 
ones which have at times attempted to assert 
such right in derogation of the Constitution. 
We have had some late and costly experience 
in the way of ultra State- rights doctrine. Let us 
avoid the other extreme, and escape the evils 
likely to result from an attempted consolidation 
of all the rights of the States in a centralized 
Government. 

"While the southern people were engaged in 
armed hostility to the Government and the Con- 
stitution, no one was more anxious than myself 
to see their spurious government overthrown, 
and their military power broken, in order that 
the Constitution and laws of the United States 
might reassert their sway. To accomplish these 
ends I urged the adoption of a vigorous con- 
scription law, with an abolition of exemption 
and commutation clauses, which, if adopted, 
would have crushed the military power of the 
South at an early period. I desired to infuse 



a vigor into the war which met with the stem 
reprobation of extreme partisans of all classes 
upon this lloor. Now that our armies liave 
been triumi)hant everywhere, and the people of 
those States lately in revolt are suing for mercy 
and pardon, it is not in my nature to inflict hu- 
miliating outrages upon them, or to demand 
that they should be reduced to an equality with 
their late slaves. 

It is but natural, when wc contemplate the 
enormity of the crime committed by those peo- 
ple in their mad attempt to destroy such a Gov- 
ernment as ours, and which the most of their 
leaders were sworn to support, that we should 
desii-e to inflict upon them such punishments as 
are demanded by broken laws and a violated 
Constitution ; and I do not pretend to say that 
the great leaders in those terrible crimes which 
have plunged the country into mourning and 
involved us in a debt of gigantic proportions 
should escape at least some of the legal conse- 
quences of their own deliberate acts. Yet we 
should, as far as the mass of the people are con- 
cerned, extend to them that godlike attribute 
of mercy, and remember that Christianity, com- 
bined with modern civilization, has long since 
exploded the idea that the wholesale shedding 
of blood is a panacea for crimes against the State. 
Let us not leave a record behind us parallel to 
the state trials of England and the reign of 
terror in France, when it was supposed that the 
most terrible punishments worked the most salu- 
tary reforms. James II, with a facetious bru- 
tality, characterized the wholesale slaughter 
which followed the abortive attempt of the Duke 
of Monmouth to revolutionize England, in IG80, 
as "the campaigns of the Lord Chief Justice 
Jeffreys in the west." The name of that cruel 
and weak-minded monarch has been handed 
down to posterity coupled with the most blood- 
thirsty and atrocious villainies that ever dis- 
graced the forms of human justice, and the name 
of Jeffreys is only remembered to be detested 
and execrated in every clime where civilization 
has extended. The terrible examples of blood- 
shed in France, during the reign of terror, have 
met with a like condemnation. It is gratifying 
to all friends of popular freedom and constitu- 
tional liberty, when we reflect that in our late 
contest, where all the worst passions of human 
nature were aroused, and when our soldiers, as 



14 



prisoners, had been treated with a barbarity 
utterly indefensible, that when our enemies were 
subdued and within our power there was no 
clamor for blood. 

Humanity and reason have with our people 
maintained a' sway which in almost any other 
country have at some time been usurped by ha- 
tred, vengeance, and bloodshed. Such an ex- 
hibition of magnanimity and mercy is alike 
creditable to our people and our institutions. 

Mr. President, inasmuch as the people of 
the South had no just cause for the commence- 
ment of the rebellion, let us be careful not to 
furnish them with one for the justification of 
similar attempts in the future, by forcing upon 
them taxation without representation, and thus 
placing them where they can avail themselves 
of the precedent sanctified by the struggles of 
our revolutionary fathers. Though they have 
been confessedly in the wrong, and have com- 
mitted a great crime, let us not violate our own 
sense of justice by heaping upon them the very 
outrages which justified the Colonies in resist- 
ing a similar tyrannical exercise of power upon 
the part of Great Britain. 

Look at this great question as you will, and 
from any stand-point, the conviction is forced 
upon your mind that we are to constitute in the 
future one great nation, and must live together 
as one people, professing the same religion, 
speaking the same language, and bound to- 
gether by the traditions of the past and the hopes 



of the future. If this be true, is it not better 
for us to forget and forgive the past than to re- 
vive and keep alive the hateful animosities which 
have come so near causing our mutual destruc- 
tion ? I trust and believe that the time will come 
when all the fierce passions and hatred engen- 
dered by the war will have subsided, and when 
we shall become a more united people than 
before, with homogeneous institutions, bound 
together by a common sentiment of love and 
admiration fo* free government and constitu- 
tional liberty. Posterity will view, through the 
medium of impartial history, the acts and 
achievements of the public men of the present 
age, and the time in which we now live and act 
our part will be referred to as the most porten- 
tous of any period of the past. The terrible 
crisis through which we have just passed will 
be referred to as demonstrating the power of a 
republican form of government, and as conclu- 
sive proof that the people have the capacity to 
administer and preserve it. Let us, then, in 
the language of the President, "cast the dis- 
orders of the past into oblivion. ' ' Let the chil- 
dren of those who have met upon the field of 
carnage imitate the generosity of their fathers, 
who could shake hands and share the rude com- 
forts of the bivouac with those so lately their 
mortal enemies ; and let us hope that both sec- 
tions may cultivate and foster that spirit of con- 
cord which shall make our Union in reality 
"one and inseparable." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 735 6 ^ 



peRnulTffe* 
pH8J 



